������Ƶ

On Wednesday, Dec. 23, the Hawaii County Council banning most pedestrians from the road into Waipio Valley.

This steep, narrow, public county road provides the only access to Waipio’s mile-long beach, as well as the state’s Muliwai hiking trail, its campground in the valley beyond and the mauka-makai King’s Trail, all of which can only be traversed on foot.

The state lands in Waipio and the valleys beyond it are scenic, historic and full of recreational interest, but if this bill succeeds hikers on foot will be banned. And hikers who drive down the road instead of walking will find there is no parking and will thus be forced to turn around.

Our expulsion will be complete.

In the entire Hamakua District (with its 50 miles of coastline), this road provides the only legal, county-designated shoreline access. If the county can impede access here, how secure will other rights-of-way be?

The first version of Bill 217, introduced by former Hawaii County Council member Valerie Poindexter, would have banned all pedestrians on the road. The bill was amended in committee to allow only Waipio landowners, lessees, residents and Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners to walk there.

On November 17, despite overwhelmingly negative public testimony, the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit advanced the bill to the council.

Opposition testimony from Jackson Bauer of the Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program noted that “the bill would severely limit the public’s right to access public lands.”

Bill 217 would defeat the purpose of state law on “Public Access to Coastal and Inland Recreational Areas,” which says:

“The absence of public access to Hawaii’s shorelines … constitutes an infringement upon the fundamental right of free movement in public space and access to and use of coastal … areas. The purpose of this chapter is to guarantee the right of public access to the sea, shorelines, and inland recreational areas …” (Sec. 115-1).

Access to public lands is meant to be equal. The law does not grant it to some while callously denying it to others. The County Code (Sec. 2-83) also mandates that the county afford “fair and impartial treatment” to “all persons.”

Bill 217 cites “safety” as its purpose, but the discussion has not been informed by evidence-based criteria or expert safety analysis. It has not been established how many pedestrians are too many.

Moreover, there was no analysis of how the road will be safer when pedestrians decide to drive down instead.

The consensus of the public testimony against Bill 217 is that the road’s real danger lies not with pedestrians but with tourists not knowing how to drive their rented four-wheel-drive vehicles or the rules for driving that particular road.

An analysis of accidents on the road does not substantiate Poindexter’s claim that pedestrians are creating “a recipe for disaster.” Pedestrians and vehicles have shared this road since the original trail was paved in 1962. Although there have been tragic vehicular accidents (the last fatality was 18 years ago), none involved pedestrians.

In fact, pedestrians may even be making the road safer. Many traffic experts believe that where traffic moves slowly, the presence of pedestrians fosters more attentive driving, resulting in fewer and less severe accidents.

Drivers’ nervousness around pedestrians actually promotes the vigilance that makes us all safer, which may explain why a steep and narrow road like this one, graced with plenty of pedestrians, has given rise to only a few, relatively minor accidents in recent years, even though traffic may have increased.

If most pedestrians are excluded, the few remaining may actually be less safe, because drivers will not be expecting them and will drive accordingly.

Recent efforts to improve safety may also be working, but their effectiveness has not been assessed. Last year, with safety as its aim, the Hawaii Legislature passed a law allowing only low-range, four-wheel-drive vehicles on the road. Rangers at the overlook now explain safety procedures.

These and other factors (such as improvements in brake technology) may help explain why the long-expected disaster has not occurred.

A rigorous analysis by traffic experts should be done to assess the present situation and recommend road safety improvements aimed at mitigating the risk. Their analysis must be based on evidence, including the physical condition of the road, measurements of traffic volume and speed, usage data, surveys of different user types, accident history, etc.

The state statute (Sec. 115-7) on public access says that the “development and maintenance of the rights-of-way … shall be the responsibility of the county.” The county’s clear duty is to keep the road open for pedestrian access to public lands and to maintain the road so that it is fit for this purpose.

Interested members of the public can offer written and oral testimony. Instructions are on the  and at . If the bill passes first reading today, it will go through a second reading at the next full council hearing so there is ample opportunity to voice concern.